The conversation that needs to be had, is the one between President Obama and the American people. He would be very much surprised as to how a majority of the American people really feel about being exploited by the israelis and their victim-hood narrative,of the last 60 plus years, with a new "most existential threat" and "arch-enemy" of the day, every day! The American people are more and more by the day finding out and realizing ,the dangerous liability israel has become, and that the israelis themselves are the one and only stumbling block to any peace. Today they are again beating this dead horse argument, and if they aren't put in their place, it will be the world that suffers.

Let's put it like this: If a super-crazy, broke to the sillin' North Korea manages to build a bomb or even to get half way there, my personal guess is that the Iran will achieve its goal sooner or later.

The only effective way to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons is to get in there, kill the leadership, detroy the nuclear facilities, secure the oilfields, enthrone some jerk in a expensive suit and HOPE that the people will play along. Since that didn't work out too well in the past years, I suppose you get ready for a long and messy ride. Well, there should be certain routine to it by now.

If you hit those piplines and refineries, the mullahs will lean back and smile. Why? Because they don't have to explain anything to their people. Unlike the american gouverment, that would have to explain the rapid loss of life quality for americans because of insanely risen oil prices.

Nice picture you drew, you did. A lil bit like Andy Warhol, huh?
But: America DOESN'T import oil from Iran. If the prices go up in the US of A again, it would have nothing to do with Mullahs.
Saudis and other jerrycans of the Gulf are terrified by the prospect of yet more powerful (nuclear) Iran, so the Persian operation should be exchanged not for 'firm promises' but for the only real commodity they have. Then, the prices will remain stable.
And the American people should replace the CEO of the White House with someone who'll kick out the radical greens and unleash the domestic oil extraction.
Last but not least, I spoke of Israelis going after the turbans, not the USA. And they not only never traded with Persia, but are on the verge of having their own oil (mutual enterprise with Cyprus).
This straight flash looks pretty good to me.

The whole region is interconnected, it's delusional to think those porblems could be dealt with separatly. Prices go up already because of the growing tensions, but a peak shouln't have to do anything with Iran?

Saudi-Arabia is among the biggest oil suppliers in the world and they are close to their maximum output. They won't ever admit it, but experts say that their attempt to exploit fields that were highly uneconomical in the past two decades implies that tey are operating at the very limit.

There you have your problem: With a constantly growing demand for oil only a constantly increasing output can keep the prices stable. As soon as the biggest suppliers have reached their maximium output, the prices will rise sky high. In order to bring them down again, there are few or none alternatives but to fall back on iranian oil.

Honestly, I don't know about radical greens in the White House but what do you mean by domestic extraction? Texas? Canadian oil sands? If that wouldn't be a problem, it would have been done years ago just to NOT be so heavily reliant on such a unstable region.

And Israel? They might seal off the Gaza strip, they might have a little skirmish in south Lebanon an they might be powerful enough that nobody dares to mess with them. But taking on Iran? On their own? Again, if that woul be possible it would have happened four years ago.

Have to say, I don't know about that deal with Cyprus (additional info is welcome) but it doesn't look anything close to a straight flash to me. I just see one part of the world heavily depending on oil and another part of the world sitting on it.

Do you seriously think that Europe and the other major countries which rely on Iranian oil will sit back quietly and watch this happen? Israel does not have the power over the rest of the world that it exerts in the United States.

The world does not consist of the USA, Israel and Iran. There are so many other factors here that makes your analysis incomplete.

1. Russia - Russia refines about 80% of Iranian crude, which gives them a huge incentive to back Iran against any military intervention. Now Russia can't actually do anything if the US decides to go all out on Iran, but an all out war on Iran seems to be something we are avoiding at all costs, and rightfully so.

2. China and India - two large growing nations which we do lots of business with, are roaming the earth looking for more energy sources. The EU giving up their share of Iranian oil may have been the best thing to come to China and India's way in a long time. They too will never sit back and allow this opportunity to buy more oil from Iran just slip away.

3. There is no, let me repeat this, no oil field in the world that will replace Iran's oil.

4. The Saudi's have started going heavily into off-shore drilling. Look at Saudi's oil fiel, Guar (excuse me if I spelled that wrong). Google it, and look where it is located. Why would they do off-shore drilling (Somewhere between 10-50 times more expensive than on-shore) if they had plenty of reserves on shore? This is not a stable option for us to totally depend on.

Yes, we should increase domestic production, but it isn't as easy as you make it. We have not been investing in that market to grow nearly as heavily as we have invested in the oil in the ME. It is extremely expensive to start building up that market, and the net energy cost may prove to be not worth the initial investment.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, but the bottom line is that attacking Iran will need nothing less than an all out invasion and occupation. That will be devestating and we ALL will feel the consequences of such an action.

You would agree for every barrel we produce domestically it lowers the cost of oil globally. if we know 50% of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico then it's a no brainer to think that's oil we should be tapping now along with the shale in the Dakota's. (which there are large deposits)

Another added benefit to miming for Shale was all the natural gas found reducing natural gas cost by 33%.

As far as Israel is concerned they have no interest invading Iran they will likely bomb some nuclear facilities but mostly military targets.

Well, I would somewhat agree to this. However, it is speculation that controls the prices as well as supply. Just talk of attacking Iran has helped prices rise with no increase or decrease in supply. Like I said in my previous post, we do certainly need to start investing in domestic energy sources. But it is not as easy as it seems. Drilling test wells and finding the actual location of the oil field is an energy intensive process, so is actually drilling to get the oil out, then transporting it to the global market. It takes a huge initial investment and you probably won't get a return on it for at least 2 years, or maybe even longer than that. Now that's saying two years AFTER the oil is in the global market, we still haven't calculated the time it takes to build whatever it takes to get that oil into the market. So it's a complex situation with no easy solution in sight.

The other problem is that we are already so deeply rooted into the current conflict with Iran that you cannot simply say, "Israel will attack Iran, not us." Iran will hit US targets if it is possible for them to do so, in response to any Israeli attack.

Either way, I hope for the best. I hope no one attacks Iran, and that we ease ourselves off of foreign dependency.

I agree getting oil out of the ground and to market can take decades; that's why more drilling now needs to be done. I find it fascinating that the reason why can't drill here/now is because of regulations; Yet we have no problem getting large supplies from Mexico, OPEC, etc which have lax environmental policies so why not reduce some of the regulations and drill more here and now?

"Israel will attack Iran, not us" is not my quote. However Iran will only attack US targets if and only if we aid Israel in attacks should it happen. That said, I agree 100% with your last statement.

Israel doesn't need any power over Europe. No one does. And you know why? Because in European so called armed forces there are more hairdressers and counselors specialized in sexual orientation, gender equality and suchlike - than gunners and tank drivers.

When the EU pressed so hard to strike a bunch of dessert dwellers in Libya, they had no means even for that and went begging to America... once again.

Some exceptions are Britain and Germany, who still have at least remnants of what once have been formidable military... can you imagine them attacking Israel? Especially Germany... LOL!

a) any attempt to land US forces and occupy Iran would be at least ten times more costly in terms of American lives than was Iraq. How long would the US have to maintain its occupation forces in Iran ? A decade, two decades, three ....? Obama would be long gone...followed by a 'regime change' in Washington, DC !

b) a presence of US forces in Iran cannot fail to alarm the Kremlin as it would directly affect Moscow's long term interests in the Caspian Sea area. The last thing Putin would agree to is the presence of US land bases on the Iranian soil. Any US landing in Iran would be met by a direct confrontation with Iranian forces armed and supplied by Russia.

This would not be a matter of simply protecting Israel, but of avoiding direct confrontation by two nuclear powers.

"Last but not least, I spoke of Israelis going after the turbans, not the USA. And they not only never traded with Persia,"

Incorrect. Israel traded with Iran from ~1950 to ~1980, when Khomeini closed the tap. A 20-year long lawsuit ensued; parts of it were settled by a Swiss arbitrator, but Israel refuses to pay the settlement demanded of it by arbitration.
Also, Marc Rich's crimes (of which Clinton absolved him) were related to trading Iranian oil.
At least one of the uses Chalabi served for Doug Feith (of Office of Special Plans) was Chalabi's promise to extend a pipeline from Kirkuk to Eilat to replace the lost Iranian oil/revenue stream. (see How Chalabi conned the Neocons http://www.salon.com/2004/05/04/chalabi_4/ )

". . . but are on the verge of having their own oil (mutual enterprise with Cyprus)."
Yes. Are these the fields Texas-corporation Noble is developing? Larger question is, are the Mediterranean gas fields in Gaza territory or Israeli territory?

A few weeks ago Ephraim Sneh told a Wilson Center panel that Israel/US needed to start a revolution in Iran because the "regime does not represent the interests of Iranian people."
First, digest the absurdities for a moment.

Got it? An outside force will kill Iranians to provoke a revolution to 'represent the interests of the Iranian people."

Barbara Slavin asked, "What about nuclear fallout? Even if just nuclear sites are bombed, there will be nuclear fallout and thousand, maybe millions of people will be killed or injured. Have Israeli military planners considered that?"

"When it comes to Israel's security," Mr Netanyahu insisted at the start of the White House meeting, "Israel has the sovereign right to make its own decisions.

I note a certain asymmetry. Since Netanyahu is doing everything he can to make sure that, when it comes to the security interests of the United States, we should not have a sovereign right to make our own decisions. Rather, we should dutifully follow the priorities of the current Israeli government -- which, on polling evidence, are not even those of most Israelis on this issue.

Sorry, but from the outside the biggest self-centered Imperialists around these days would appear to be the PRC. The US at least makes some attempt to consider the opinions of those elsewhere. Not as much as it perhaps should, but the attempt usually gets made.

China, in contrast, never does. It may not be able to force its will elsewhere in some cases. But when it can, there is no visible sign whatever that any consideration is even considered for an instant. Sorry to have to say it to you, but in the eyes of anyone outside China (especially anyone who happens to be located near China) the US seems like a far smaller problem. Not a trivial one, perhaps, but far smaller.

I think that dialogue and rational discourse can win the day if given the opportunity. If you are interested in the apparent conflict that has taken shape with Iran please check out my blog on this subject at http://sirmetropolis.blogspot.com/ comments are welcome.

Obama is a grandmaster at speeches and giving false impressions. He is barely able to mask his contempt for America and Israel, and seeks to radically transform the world for the worst (from the viewpoint of western civilization). If re-elected, he would be unrestrained from inflicting his vision on the world.

Bibi has the power to unseat this usurper, by attacking Iran. Likely this would result in Iran lashing out at not only Israel (the "Little Satan") but also the US (the "Big Satan"), as well as international trade through the Straits of Hormuz.

Then Obama would be faced with a stark choice.
He must counter-attack Iran, or openly display his contempt for Americans and American interests.
Either way, he loses, because the mess can be laid at his doorstep and American voters will feel the pain of an abrupt increase in oil prices.

Already oil prices have risen, but that is mostly due to Obama's tripling of the US money supply. Bush Jr's printing press was also hyperactive, but at a lower portion of the exponential slope. The price of oil as measured in gold, has barely risen during the last three years.

The accumulated errors of the last 100 years or so have created the conditions for a "perfect storm" that will sweep away the prevailing orthodoxy. The facts of reality and laws of nature have relentlessly levied wages on prevailing political/economic sins.

His (Obama's) vision is shared by everyone in the world - except hawkish Israelis and poorly informed Americans. I assure you that there is nothing about the stance taken by him, to moderate the saber rattling from bigots in the Israeli and America, that is even remotely outside of what NORMAL people all over the world think.

This is not a defense of the petulant behaviour of Iran. They may be potentially dangerous, but at the moment no more so that said Israel and America, but of whom have committed preemptive attacks on other countries more than any other state.

Obama is a grand master of speeches, but you forgot that he can think. The script written for you and most American leaders is hard for him to follow because in many cases it is so painfully hypocritical.

I bet you too are a devout christian, probably pro lifer, advocating rabidly for war where thousands would be killed. I know I am generalising here, but there is a credible caricature of the war hungry. I just don't want you to believe your way of thinking is normal except in Israel and America.

I am not claiming to be better informed than you are, however, I know what I am talking about. Obama has done nothing good for America or the American people. He is charismatic, but that's about it. He knows how to deliver one hell of a speach, but the truth is he lied. He lied to Americans about his plans to "change" the country. Nothing has changed since the Bush era, in fact I see the exact same policies that Bush wanted to implement. I am not saying I agree with Kevin Scott on wanting a war with Iran to expose Obama, I am just agreeing with him that Obama has proven himself to be a typical politician who only wishes to line his own pockets instead of help bring real change to our nation.

...and this is what I find so mind boggling about this entire discourse on his presidency. FACTS do not support anything you just said but I have to admit it has been said enough to make you believe it.

Maybe your expectations of him were unrealistic to begin with, but even if you look at the basic economic indicators you would see that under his presidency dear America was saved and has shown steady growth.

There is this image of the swash-buckling leader of the free world that America has of their president that is unhealthy as it often values style over substance - the main attacks on him have all been based on deliberately fabricated impressions in order to somehow make him seem either foreign or inadequate, but it would be more honest to get rid of him for a true disagreement on economic policy or social policy, than to just go with what you know to be blatant lies - isn't that so? You don't have to want him as president - I'm sure that is one of your much quoted, much mangled constitutional rights

How has he lined his pockets? where is proof of that? It just seems like hastily put together rhetoric designed to tarnish and spread doubt rather than indict. You seriously think that in this environment of vilification that if he did something illegal his opponents wouldn't be on it like feral dogs? Please.

America has so much promise, so many bright stars, and looking on it feels like you are doing everything within you power to go back a couple decades on what you, in your heart, know to be not at all true.

The change for USA does not lie with government, change is something that has to happen with the people first. Just read the comment from our dear in-bred soul below (guest-ilmiown), that is the change America and the world needs. The compassion to find a solution for these degenerate beings who are afraid the world would soon see they have no character and are starting to rot from the inside out.

Thank you for your comment. Although you may think I am just another Obama basher, I am not. I am a politician basher. I have seen many US presidents come and go and I see a common theme with all of them. None of them do anything in the first term, other than try to get re-elected. This idea that our economy is on a rise, is false. Our unemployment does not account for people who lost their unemployment benefits and are still actively seeking work. Therefore, the number you always here on the news is false. That is not an accurate representation of what the real employment situation is in our country today. Inflation is also a problem that we will encounter soon, and Obama is not even addressing the issue. Under his administration the price of oil continues to steadily increase in dollar prices. However, the gold value of oil has remained pretty much the same for a while now. Aside from that, Obama has proven to be a hypocrate in his foreign affairs and domestic ones. On one hand, he rants on about cutting our deficit by slashing our budgets. Then he calls for nationalized health care. All he is doing is trying to show both sides of the political spectrum that he is doing something for them. He chose Egypt for his "speech to the Muslim world." He repeatedly talked about freedom, democracy and all that other stuff our politicians just love saying. Then when a popular uprising came about in Egypt he refused to support it until it was clear that Mubarak was going to step down. On top of that, his administration continues to support the exact same military leaders that upheld Mubarak's old system. Despite numerous reports about Egypt's military rulers carrying on the exact same policies of Mubarak, Obama's administration continues to support them. Pure hypocracy.

You say he saved our country? How can you prove this? Do you mean by bailing out the banks? If so, then you know very little about economics. All he did was approve the illegal printin of billions of dollars so that the corrupt banks as well as other companies can continue their lunacy, playing with the American tax payers dollars.

All the meanwhile, the real issues that are going to plague our country in the future have not been dealt with. Many economists believe that our national debt is a much larger threat to our country than any terrorist organization or outside threat. This is not secret information or a conspiracy theory, this is what many educated economists believe, and I agree. What has our president done to deal with this? Add troops to Afghanistan? Use our airforce and navy to attack Lybia? Now this whole thing with Iran, in which I am sure Obama's tone will change if re-elected. Please tell me what he is doing that is so different than other politicians that came before him.

Andy, I wish that my views were popular in Israel and America. Alas, the good aspects of present-day western civilization are but a faint echo of traditional Greco-Roman civilization, and in particular their theories of Jus Gentium (ancient common law) and Jus Naturale (natural justice).

Of course, the well from which these bounties spring, is humanism (in the Aristotelian sense of rational animality, as well as the modern sense of rational empiricism known as objectivism).

Jesus Christ? What little we know of him, is from accounts written by various men, many years after his death. What we do know, is that his followers constituted the first invasion of the west by middle eastern mysticism. Fortunately, like descendents of Mongolian invaders of China, Christians have tended to partially assimilate to western civilization.

Unfortunately when Islam invaded the west, this has not resulted in assimilation of the invaders. It has resulted in conquest, through terrorism, welfarism, assault, rape, murder, and demographics.

The west has responded to this with flawed strategy and mixed results. The occupations are thinly disguised tribute. We must renounce the failed strategy of the Westphalian Treaty. There are no "states" (ie governments with a monopoly of force, either actual or in accord with justice),
only "governments" (ie the organization of force to regulate or control behavior).

This means, borders no longer provide a moral shield, behind which the sovereign exercises dictatorial control. Iran has given lip service to Westphalianism, only when that serves their protection, while attacking innocent civilians outside their territory (through thinly veiled proxies).

What happens if Iran gets nukes? At the very least, they will accelerate their subsidies to terrorism, emboldened by their nuclear shield.
At worst, they will unleash their nukes on Israel in a follow-up to the WWII holocaust (which they deny); then explode a nuke at high altitude over the US, creating an electro-magnetic pulse that would take out most of the N. American electrical grid (for months or years).

Of course, as a liberal arts graduate, for you electro-magnetism is a kind of magic. But when most electrical devices blow out, including large transformers that take 18 months to build, your subsidized make-believe world will collapse.

Arguing with these guys is a waste of breath. Anyone motivated by so much anger, has to be living in fear that their perception of reality is not right, and they cannot deal with the consequences.
On the other hand, I believe, I REALLY BELIEVE, (which means my opinion is not based on any facts or intelligent analysis of reality, I just simplistically accept something at face value, and I am probably a little thick as well, etc. etc.) that we have to wait for Klingons to land before peace will be achieved in the middle east.

You are right on both points, It is a waste of time to debate these guys as they probably are Ron Paul acolytes, totally fringe cranks......and yes, peace will only occur in the ME when Oil runs dry.
Then no one will give a rats ass about anything in the Middle East and Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the other OPEC depots will rescind back to the tribal culture they were before oil was discovered.

I disagree with you on Sharon as he was much more pragmatic the Netanyahu, he pulled the settlements from the Sinai and Gaza and formed the moderate Kadima party breaking away from the Likud. He wanted a solution as he got older.

What do you mean by selling Real Estate on Florida or CDOs on Wall Street. Is this what “Bad” Jews do ?

This old guy is walking along the beach when he comes across a dirty old bottle. So he picked it up and rubbed the dirt off the label to see what it was. All of a sudden, this genie popped out of the bottle and said, "I give you one wish."

The guy thinks and after a while pulls a map of the Middle East out of his pocket and says, "See this map, well, can you bring peace to Israel and Palestine?"

The Genie says, "look I’m only a Genie, not a God, can’t you think of something else?"

So the old guy thinks for a bit and says, "Yeah, tell you what, my wife hasn’t given me a blow-job for 20 years, think you can swing it?"

The Genie pauses, and then says, "Can I see that map again?"

Maybe we need a real God to solve this problem. Unfortunately, like Genies, they don't exist, other than in people minds.

Since it appears Bibi, like Sharon has no intention of treating the peace process seriously, it's had to be time for a joke:

Just for your info, on a side note. The gold standard has nothing to do with an isolationist policy. In fact, the dollar being tied to a gold standard was one of the main reasons why our currency became the reserve currency of the world. That doesn't seem like an isolationist policy to me. But don't concern yourself with facts, after all what do facts have over your opinion?

Clave, "libertarian" means, one who believes in the non-initiation-of-force principle. With this I agree. Non-interventionism (military isolationism) is an entirely different concept, with which I disagree.

The libertarian movement almost disappeared (in the US) after Pearl Harbor, because of a few self-styled libertarian columnists who saw WWII as a simple continuation of WWI. Post-WWII, the movement in America was restored by Rand, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. Three were cultural Jews and three were immigrants.

Due to demographic weakness, the movement was victim to a takeover by Rothbard, who distorted the terminology in order to make coalitions with the "old right" and "new left". Rothbard is Rockwell's brain, and Rockwell is Ron Paul's brain; all three are clueless on foreign policy. In reality, non-interventionism is to libertarianism as vegetarianism is to libertarianism. Something possible but not required, and impractical.

A gold standard is not required by the free market, but traditionally markets have chosen gold (or silver) as the medium of exchange.
As Aristotle pointed out, money should be:
1. durable
2. portable
3. divisible
4. intrinsically valuable.

Obama seems to be making a sincere effort to keep the USA out of another war in the middle east. I am pleasantly surprised.

I had taken it as a foregone conclusion that the US will go to war in Iran to help Israel. Particularly since Iran has so much oil and natural gas which Big Oil is excluded from. Big Oil was excluded in Iraq too and now, post US invasion, they have divvied up Iraqi oil.

Also, since the entire US congress gave continuous standing ovations for Nethanyahu last year when he addressed the US Congress. The US Congress stopped just short of genuflecting in front of Nethanyahu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_reb0ZUAk
(Do these congressmen really represent the American people?)

Hence, I believed that there is no way Obama can take on Nethanyahu, that too in an election year.

But, Obama is really trying. Irrespective of how this goes, I respect this gentleman for trying. He understands that ordinary American are tired of non-stop war, and he is attempting to action that feeling.

Kishore, you speak of war as if the west had a choice as to whether or not to be involved. The war is already on, whether or not we realize it. One side in a conflict does not have the power to unilaterally declare there is no conflict.

Of course Iran can be prevented from obtaining nukes and ending civilization. Just two words:
regime change.

This can easily be effected by taking out Iran's oil export capacity. This infrastructure cannot be buried under mountains, and is easily destroyed.

Without money, the Iran regime will not only be unable to continue subsidizing terrorism, but will collapse. Much as the Soviet Union collapsed, through lack of money with which to buy support and pacify the populace.

Don't fool yourself, there are no "easy" solutions to this problem. If a coalition takes out that part of infrastructure, the western economy will suffer on a scale beyond the imagination for anyone who was born after 1974 (that includes me).

And even if you manage to cause a regime change, what is the next step? Enthrone a friend of western interests? Didn't work out too well in Afg. and Iraq, huh?

So I guess the conclusion is: Except an additional nuclear power in the Middle East or get sucked into (yet another) conflict that won't leave a winner behind.

I believe we tried regime change once in Iran, replacing a democratically elected government with the Shah. Then 1979 came around. I guess some people just don't want to learn from history. It's all good though, good to see people on here that understand.

The American economy would enormously benefit from a dramatic rise in oil prices. We are sitting on the world's largest depositories of oil and natural gas. The higher prices would spur liberalization of legal barriers erected by left crazies. In the short term there would be some disruption, but without the surgery the problems will fester and cause much more harm in the long run.

Not only from long-term higher oil prices (due to continued lockdown of domestic production) but an EMP would take out the electrical grid. Damages would be roughly 100x times greater.

I find it interesting that virtually all the Arab nations as well as Western nations are extremely wary of Iran (all detailed on the Wiki leaks) and want to take out IRAN'S nuclear ambitions. Yet, Israel, do to their shitty treatment of the Palestinians as well as far left and Arab antisemitism remains the bogeyman here. Why can’t Western nations and Arab nations speak the truth? Iran, with its unstable and incompetent Mullahs will cause havoc with nukes. This trumps the 60 year Arab/Israeli War by far.

There is one important relevant factor we've not discussed: that the long-run historical forces acting upon all nations tend toward pacification and democratisation, as discussed in Stephen Pinker's book 'The Better Angels of our Nature'.

If you believe that even the most reactionary and anti-Semitic of Iran's rulers do not wish to commit suicide, which a nuclear attack on Israel would in effect be, then it follows that a nuclear-armed Iran would not result in the destruction of Israel, but in a new regional cold war. As happened with the original cold war between the West and the Soviet Union, the peace would be kept partly by the threat of mutual assured destruction. That would allow time to for the long run forces of democratization and pacification to have their inevitable effect upon Iranian society. And when that day comes, disarmament will become possible.

In short, the best thing to do is to wait. A war would be counter-productive. It would drive the Iranians into a patriotic resistance of an external threat, would close their minds to internal reform, and delay that hoped-for day.

Very well put, a Cold War scenario in the Middle East is what I foresee myself.

Plus, we should raise the question what the real problem is here. Is it Israels fear of nuclear destruction or the loss of a unique feature in the region?

Air strikes might delay the iranian programm but will they be able to stop it? I don't think so! Thus to effectively stop the Iranians from building a bomb a full scale invasion as seen in Iraq would be needed. Nobody can honestly wish for something like that to happen, I think we all can imagine the most likely outcome.

The arabian spring would have been a good oppotunity for Israel to improve the relationship with its neighbours. Unfortunately Lieberman and Netanyahu are the worst case in this situation and absolutely not up to the job. Accept it, the time for ultra-hardliners is over. This duo infernale won't achieve anything desirable, but that's the call of Israels civil society.

One thing you can be sure of: If Iran attains a bomb, the Saudis will reach out for it too. In the end it is far more likely that we will live in world with dozens of nuclear powers, than in a world without them. I don't see how the USA or Israel could prevent this development since they aren't exactly role models themselves.

Silty, I see you are literate and have read one of my favorite authors, Steve Pinker. Unfortunately, long-term trends don't help Black Swan events like Iran setting off nukes (or using them as a nuclear shield so they can increase their terrorism). The mad mullah leading Iran are not rational actors, like the former Soviet Union. They are not pacified by dachas, mistresses, and the good life. They glorify suicide terrorism and long for an imagined paradise after life.

The Soviet Union was often displayed as a country (or accumulation of countries) led by red, irrational fanatics, that had to be shown a strong hand and will just to prevent them from doing something stupid.

So, pretty much how Iran and other countries, that don't fit into the western strategy of interests are displayed today. Looking backwards the SU now miraculously becomes the epitome of rationality and predictability. I guess perception works in mysterious ways.

By the standards of insanity and likeliness of use, Korea and large parts of southern China should be nuclear wastelands by now.

By the way, 60% of US-American mainstream culture celebrates the heroic death in righteous battle as something desirable. In most cases, that picture is further idealized by underlining it with a strong religious message which basicly expresses that those fine and brave soldiers are doing gods will and go to heaven if they die doing so.

Honestly, the US-American fetish for martyrdom is on a par with the islamist interpretation.

Soviet communists were irrational, but not suicidally so. Because they didn't believe they would be rewarded in the alleged after-life for their terrorism in real life. Communism didn't make that promise, while Islam does (or seems to).

What poll are you referring to? You give no name or link. Are we supposed to just take your interpretation on faith?

As an American, I can tell you with certainty that virtually all Americans love life and do not believe if they die that would be good. We do tend to believe in fighting to defend life and liberty.
Do you have a problem with that?

You appear to have fallen victim to multi-culturalism, which views all cultures/systems as necessarily morally equivalent. However there are objective natural laws which rule human life, and which clash with outer-directed force-drive religious faith. Opposition to Jihadist "martyrdom" is not equivalent to Jihadist "martyrdom". However, if I were a Jihadist, that is what I would claim in order to further Islamism.

Definitely, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, for it will intensify the unstability in the Middle East, and may even lead to an nuclear arms race, or military conflicts in the region. What's more, a nuclear Iran will encourage other countries to pursue nuclear bombs, and this will undermine the world peace.
I agree with The Economist that force is not the only way to persuade Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. The world should make clear that Iran will be more dangerous if it actually possess a nulear bomb, and Iran will get more if it give up its nuclear ambitions.
As for Israel, it is not much better, with its mighty force and nuclear arsenal, Israel bullies its weak neighbors at will. Netanyahu is a liar, like once he said,"Israel can't go back to the indefensible 1967 border". Israel just don't want to give up the land they have taken. With mighty military force, nuclear bombs, American support and extremely weak, divided neighbors, how can Israel be indefensible if it just push its border back some miles.
If Israel really want peace and treat Palestinians more kindly, it would be less worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Jews did suffer a lot during the second World War, but it's not the excuse to make another people suffer.

" ... which came after fulsome public reassurances by the president to the pro-Israel lobby the day before..."

Interesting use of the word "fulsome", certainly.

With the Economist, it is actually possible that both the writer and the editor actually know what the word means, and used it intentionally. With other publications it would just be an embarrassing mistake.

I do not believe that the United States has any obligation to protect Israel at all costs. They are fully capable of doing it themselves. I could not care less about what Israel expects of the United States. But that is neither here nor there at this point.
There are several aspects of President Obama that I disagree with, as anyone does with any president. However, I cannot help but believe that he has done the right thing so far in this case. Iran will get a weapon if it wants, even if it's 5 or 10 years down the road. Bombing the country doesn't make sense, and will only fuel tensions that can be directed at the rulers of Iran if we give the sanctions some more time. I have always assumed that it was true that sanctions don't work. Seems to me that there has to be something working in this case.
Obama acknowledges that there is a problem (despite whether or not I believe we should help Israel) and is taking a very pragmatic approach to the situation, something that I haven't seen in a long time.
While Israel is an absolute joke in that they keep settling new areas and pushing the Palestinians into a corner, I do support how Obama has handled the Israel-Iran situation thus far. But it's about time the United States behave with more rationality and tell Israel to stop the settlements. It's no wonder Iran wants to blow them off the face of the earth. I have a feeling that if Israel stopped what it was doing and made some pragmatic and rational decisions to engage with the Palestinians rather than run all over them, then maybe Iran wouldn't be as pissed. Of course, that's to say there is some rationality on their side as well. I have an idea Israel! Maybe, just maybe if you stopped isolating yourself from your neighbors, then you wouldn't have to ask the United States to protect your behind.
Basically, I give Obama props for how he has handled it so far. Nonetheless, it's about time the United States stop appealing to Israel and its supporters. They can work things out for themselves, especially if they showed some rationality and tried to make peace with their neighbors instead of pushing them out.

Unfortunately, with the support of Russia and China, Iran will be a nuclear power soon. Israel's attack on Iran would not make a considerable difference in Iran's pursuing its nuclear program.

Netanyahu is certainly more worried about keeping his job. An attack on Iran would give him some credibility in Israel. However, as usual, without the help of the US Israel cannot achieve anything. US spent more than its current debt on Israel's security. If Dems and Reps are really concerned about the US debt, for once they should get together and stop wasting the tax payer's money.

The jews are more competent.... Mazoff, Derzovitz, Wolfowitz.. for example..... Aipac...... Competent? you mean crooks! and you? Does shooting phosphorous on children count?
Taking all the water? Sorry my least is incomplete.....Please let me know!

in reply to happyfish18. You can not see what the Iranian regime is doing in Iraq and Syria in the time being. They killing the muslims and the christain and all other communities and sects who say to them no. I do believe that the only God for the Iranian Mullahs is hate and kill, they do not believe in God they do believe in fire. So no difference between Isreal and Iran, both of them want to control the middle east and its sources that is why Iraq and Syria are being destroyed.

in reply to happyfish18. Iam not talking about the Parsi I am not talking about the Iranian People because they are in a big prison don't forget the Iranian regime at the time of Iranian people's green revolution how the Iranian regime represented by the Mullahs, who represent devil, cracked down the iranian people because they say no in a very brutal and primitive way. Now you can say that Iraq, Syria and Palestine are history and they should call 911 because the diplomacy has failed. I am with the people every where with their right to live I am not against any human being but I blame the leaders of the world for not being with the humanity every where specially we are in the 21st century where everybody has to respect the opinion of the other but I still see that the big fish eats the small fish as we still live in a forest not in the 21st century.

You are kidding yourself on the Iranian regime's prison system. The democracy has setup the Apartheid prison system for Palestinians now and yet to be borned for over half a century.
Talking abour civilian incarceration, half the black males are regularly lodged there for free food and lodging.

Mr Netanyahu insisted at the start of the White House meeting, "Israel has the sovereign right to Commit war crimes because of the holocaust. I believe that’s why you appreciate, Mr President, that Israel must reserve the right to steal land and put Palestineans in ghettos."

It is the Palestinians own corrupt and despotic leaders, who stole the Arabs hope, dreams and aspiration of ever becoming a productive members of society. Not the Israelis.

Just compare the overall poverty, luck of education, and backwardness prevalent throughout the entire Arab & Islamic countries, to that of other industrialized nations. Yet Arabs always blame others for their own failures - Israelis being the prime target.

The prevailing mantra among Islamists like Hamas & Hizbollah. Why work hard? As long as you can pin some bogus "stolen" diatribe, to justify the looting their neighbors proprieties. And why not. It worked very well during Islam's expansion, it sure should work now. Just cry and whine a little more, and Alla will make it happen.

While I agree with you on the fact that Arabs' biggest enemy is the Arabs themselves, your analysis of why Islam spread is totally incorrect. This is just typical anti-Islamic rhetoric just as there are many ignorant people here spewing anti-Jew/Israeli comments. Don't go and point the finger at others while you are doing the exact same thing.

Facts are facts. It is the manner by which Islam was spread (at least during Mohammad's life time), is well documented in the Quran & Hadith.

And before you reply with the usual "but the old testament contains the same rubbish". I do agree with you on that. The difference is, Jews & Christians are allowed to, and do engage in rational and mature discussions about the merits of these events. Most important of which, their application & pertinence in modern day life. Express their repudiation in public, with no one getting killed.

Unfortunately in Islam, no one is allowed even think any critical thinking - a perfect fodder to the type of tension between the Judea-Christianity & Islam.

Until we will see a public discussions among Muslims, asking the hard questions. Such as:
Who Was Mohammad?, and why Muslims must follow blindly each and every word from a man who lived 1400 years ago?. What is "perfect man?.

By no means do I bash Muslims - rather, to point out to you that, only through critical thinking, any society can improve itself - instead of blind obedience to words of one man.

I totally agree. Muslims do need to "chill out." For example, someone wants to burn a Koran in Florida, USA. What the hell does that have anything to do with a Muslim in, say, Pakistan. I don't mean to pick on Pakistan, but you know what I'm saying. However, Islam is not what some of these idiots are practicing today. Islam does not encourage any of the violence that happens in its name. Jew's and Christians lived on Muslim lands for over a thousand years, there was never a holocaust or anything nearly as horrible even attempted during those years. There's something fishy about some of these covered morons screaming "ALLAH!!" before committing an act of violence, wouldn't you agree? Doesn't represent Islamic tradition which had proven itslef over a thousand years. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, estimated at 1.5 billion followers. If what you say was true for even half of the world Muslim population, there would be a lot more violent acts than what we hear about. However, Muslims all around the world prove this is not the case.

By the way, it is not believed that Muslims are following the word of Muhammed, but the word of God. I'm not trying to convince you of this, just trying to help you better understand real Islam, not what is portrayed on the media.

The Zionists have been creating chaos and conflicts around the Arab countries. They are trying to expand to the other Ummah like Iran. Actually, the loosening Putin's iron grip on the Eurasian Central Asian periphery to control Oil resources could be their real target. The ultimate aim is to kick out Russian interests and prevent other rising powers to intrude into the backyard.

Russia is rightful heir to the eastern roman empire (along with Byzantium). Turkey should be expelled from NATO, and NATO should consider including a reformed Russia.

Russia and Islam are in conflict. Unfortunately both the west and Russia have triangulated, to set Islam against the other. This has destroyed trust between the west and east segments.

West and east must again become partners against a common foe. Islam has conquered the territory which they now claim as Dar al-Islam. Conquered peoples need to overthrow their conquerers, and restore the classical world. Then commence with reform toward natural law, through common law.

What in the world are you guys talking about?
"Islam has conquered the territory which they now claim as Dar al-Islam. Conquered peoples need to overthrow their conquerers, and restore the classical world."

So you are suggesting that these countries over throw a religion? Then to be conquered by the Russians? I am certain that I am mis-understanding your comments. Please explain

I don't accept that Russia, reformed or not, is the only alternative to Islamic rule. For instance, Georgia and Russia are in conflict, even though Georgia is not part of Dar al-Islam.

That is a lesson which we now know, but in the 80's we didn't. That's why, at the time, I was OK with Reagan's subsidies to anti-Soviet operations in Afghanistan. Despite warnings of Dr. Jack Wheeler, I was not aware of the extent of the problem. The subsidies were routed through ISI, which favored the most fundamentalist, instead of the relatively secular and more competent Massood.

I did not foresee the imminent fall of the Soviet system, nor anticipate the rise of Jihadism. Unfortunately this was another in a series of the west triangulating Islamists against Russia, and vice versa.

Islam is both a religion and political system.
Both outer-directed religious faith, and initiation of force, should be rejected.

Ok that makes more sense. However, I am still confused about what you are trying to accomplish here. You are speaking as if these nations did not/do not want Islam. Try to tell the Afghans to adopt another religion, other than Islam.

Islam is not a political system. The Koran, which is the main, I guess you can say, "Rule Book," of Islam, mentions nothing of ruling others or how to form a government. It is strictly confined to how one must run his or her own life. It just happens to be that religion is a very powerful tool when used on an un-educated population. You can very easily twist the words of the Koran/Bible/Torah, whatever. Just as other religions have done in the past, and some continue it today. The problem with the Muslim nations is not Islam, it is their corrupted governments and lack of economic prosperity.

Nations which are now Islamic-ruled, possess corrupted governments and lack of economic prosperity due to pre-existing tribal cultures and also overlaying Islamic culture, which reinforces many of the worst attributes.

All outer-directed faith retards host persons and society, to varying degrees depending on the person and culture. In other words, the harmful part is outer-directed faith, and that is found in varying degrees in various religions.

This faith element retards mental development,
and tends to give moral cover to initiation of force.

The Quran is one of a trilogy of Islamic holy texts, including also the Sira and Hadith. Jihad is an inextricable part of the Islamic trilogy.

The Koran is clearly outer-directed; 64% is devoted to the Kafir or infidel. 31% of the trilogy and 24% of the Medinan Koran are devoted to Jihad; 98% of those references are to the outer Jihad. 9.3% of the trilogy is devoted to anti-Jew hate text, while Mein Kampf featured only 7%.

Muhammed tried voluntary persuasion (the Meccan Koran) but got very few converts. Then he switched to the outer Jihad in the Medinan Koran, and found conquest and plunder more effective tools of conversion.

One of these tools is Sharia law, which makes non-Muslims into second-class citizens, subject to increased taxes and harassment. Which explains the rape epidemic in Dar al-Harb (the realm of war) such as in Sweden, Norway, and Britain.

All territories now under Sharia, were originally conquered by the sword. After multiple generations of coercive brainwashing and (as in Pakistan) inbreeding, most of the population may support Islam; which explains why simple democracy is not the solution.

Yet in places like Persia, only recently conquered by Islam and where mad Mullahs may have over-reached, the people are getting restive; there are still traces of a once-great culture.

Let them join civilization, and with us declare, "Islam delendum est".

You forgot about how Persia was defeated by Alexander the Great. Though there were times when Persia had a good culture, Zoroastrian.

Actually I was referring more to the roman republic, and Greco-Roman culture and practice.

Back then,"Jus Gentium" referred to "Laws of Nations" that is, laws in common to all nations. They didn't count others as having significant nations because those were viewed as barbarian.

Their culture was also great, when rome conquered athens, the two fused. Elements of Stoicism were emphasized to create the philosophy of natural law or Jus Naturale.

When the price of oil rises dramatically, as it will, the west must re-think itself and regain confidence in it's roots. Instead of running away from them. Radical political reform will be necessary, pain motivates change but in order for the change to be in the right direction, philosophy is necessary. We don't have the luxury of waiting until statistical studies show where to go, and in any event, most people aren't moved by consequential arguments. They do care about end results, but foolishly think their good intentions are good guides.

For example, typically people lack the knowledge to appreciate Milton Friedman, so for them the simpler homilies of Austrian economics are motivators.